A man in Pennsylvania who was arrested and spent a considerable amount of time in prison before his trial asked a Pennsylvania appellate court to overturn the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s decision to suspend his benefits. The man argued that the provision in Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act requires suspension of benefits for the period during which a worker is incarcerated after their conviction. The worker had spent 525 days in prison awaiting his trial and even though he was convicted, his judge credited him with “time served” and he was released upon his conviction, so he had not technically been incarcerated after his conviction.

Carl Sadler worked for Coca-Cola and suffered an injury while working as a production manager. He received a weekly disability rate of $652 based upon an average weekly wage of $978. He argued that there had been a miscalculation and his average weekly wage should have been $1,412.04 and his disability rate of $888 since he typically worked 10 hours a day 6 days a week, so he worked 60 hours a week not 40. He claimed there was never a week he did not work overtime and during busy months he would work beyond 60 hours a week. His employer also filed a suspension petition because he spent 525 days in jail prior to his conviction, they argued he should not be unjustly enriched and should adjust his benefits accordingly.

In his appeal, he argued the Workers’ Comp Judge incorrectly calculated his average weekly wage because there was not enough evidence to show that he was expected to work only 40 hours a week. He also argued that he spent 525 days incarceration prior to his trial and did not meet the requirement that says benefits can be suspended for the time incarcerated after a conviction.

The court agreed, remanding the case for a recalculation of his weekly wage and reversing the suspension of his benefits.

The only reason he remained in jail prior to his conviction was because he couldn’t make his bail. They said under the language of the provision his benefits could not be suspended during this time, it was clear language that stated benefits could be suspended after a conviction. He received credit against his sentence for the time he had already spent and was released, and the court stated they “should be vigilant not to, under the guise of interpretation, supply words the General Assembly omitted” so they reversed the suspension.

Read the case here and read more here.